From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B75C43387 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133CD20856 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="iwbEdnhu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728897AbfAQQmP (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:42:15 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-f65.google.com ([209.85.217.65]:43796 "EHLO mail-vs1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726854AbfAQQmP (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:42:15 -0500 Received: by mail-vs1-f65.google.com with SMTP id x1so6598312vsc.10 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 08:42:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EXkoDMAo1l9x1KFS7DJ3BAbq5tPoK01h54+Ce8Z3KbE=; b=iwbEdnhuzPXZUpKFZ+sPF44s4397qHQU04zlI3DUoP5Xv4gXqQsHZDSa2iFztJr5G3 mxRx/LUznf98r21D/Qktoz3Tr9g1i4y3jVb9LOQCGneAS9VU2nsvvghZRpf4yi1AZjmV lKVnJ7D1CGeSRR4afXWP4lzpzm3gytuKmDZro= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EXkoDMAo1l9x1KFS7DJ3BAbq5tPoK01h54+Ce8Z3KbE=; b=RciKMHCgYy3qD6GGRzcRTDh4hcdo0zTz6YDwKrq0Zbe8NsuDPTd7tBDyD394tl39b1 2uMsA1Xd4Ca3URGIEOf4ne31kVB8N9uey/CBWN40YtuIFdXNtfWuNHu6nroKUGRqelXH Qu8VfU3rIjjFNEtppZw0APQZ0LVY8znWYXHAKosmIQ9yxKPTsqktStn5kZZkIrvzO95U X8hcmCUfMvvLrUdG/++AEjQBB5W8Qev/F7UF/JZ0C20xnFhGIu7fLR6jcGWSalPJZN6y QUaOnnNTblCnmfrz6T3HPos76sXsIRmUd0QlJmBgCDKGYerXGrpJPT+X5f6cq4BKOQyq OEZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeNTE/hwMjvOatbf5SZ23D09uxBTmsXJdpIIDbc4SQwEkitvxXG jGMi8ZKB/5h2F60M64MoGZYfY1u9l3U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4cV1wwilsoyw8LYS41fapri6/BVHFPFUTI+gKP8LdC2DOWwDw9yKehzhsVHqgu714KF2lQHA== X-Received: by 2002:a67:a8da:: with SMTP id h87mr6565732vsi.143.1547743333395; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 08:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vs1-f54.google.com (mail-vs1-f54.google.com. [209.85.217.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a137sm3112122vsd.24.2019.01.17.08.42.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Jan 2019 08:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-f54.google.com with SMTP id h78so6612955vsi.6 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 08:42:11 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a67:7d01:: with SMTP id y1mr6392973vsc.48.1547743331296; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 08:42:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7cd7d5bc-1d69-57f5-4a98-81b036f81682@kernel.org> <20190117004416.GA17449@cisco> <20190117162703.GC17449@cisco> In-Reply-To: <20190117162703.GC17449@cisco> From: Kees Cook Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 08:41:59 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Linux 5.0-rc2 seccomp_bpf user_notification_basic test hangs To: Tycho Andersen Cc: shuah , James Morris , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tycho Andersen wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:12:50AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:26 PM shuah wrote: > > > I am running Linux 5.0-rc2 and not an older kernel. > > > > Weird. I couldn't reproduce this on 5.0-rc2, but I did see it on a > > kernel without seccomp user_notif. Does the patch I sent fix it for > > you? (And if so, can you take it in your tree?) > > I can reproduce it; you have to run it as non-root. I think your patch > is necessary to get it to at least fail. The question is: what should > we do about these tests that require real root? Skip them if we're not > real-root, I guess? Hm, maybe use the XFAIL() bit of the harness? Perhaps it's time to make it a root-only test and do internal priv-dropping to test the nnp-requiring parts? I'll add it to the TODO list... -Kees -- Kees Cook